Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kauffer said:
When I asked you once why there is no evidence at all of Amanda in Kercher's room and why there are no shoeprints in blood belonging to Sollecito in the room proving that he walked out of the room after tearing off the bra, your ludicrous answer was that they both ran away immediately after the murder, presumably before Kercher had a chance to bleed all over them!

And that bizarro explanation was supposed to embrace your assertion that Amanda stabbed Kercher to death at close quarters.

They took no evidence away with them either - not the tiniest drop of blood.

Boy did those two run fast, eh?
Click to expand...

Please answer my question: what happened to Amanda's coat and the bag for clothes, she took to the cottage the morning after (Raff and her claim)?
 
Machiavelli said:
It is not my statement.
Those reported within quotation marks are statements quoted in the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

"one should always expect to find a few drop-in alleles in negative controls".

Actually the quote says "spuri" which I translated as "drop-in".

The presence of few spurious alleles is something that one should always expect to find in negative controls (as for Vecchiotti & Conti, actually quoting from literature).
Click to expand...

Your previous post on this matter and this one confuse two different aspects of contamination. These are as different as apples and oranges (an English-language idiom).

The confusion is evidence of either to a failure to grasp the fundamentals of the DNA quantification and profiling processes for non-LCN and LCN methods, or an intentional misrepresentation.

The contamination observed in the NTC (no template controls) during the quantification process were not run according to Stefanoni's self-developed LCN method, but the regular quantification process as usually run for RT-PCR quantification. Their profiles were not given to the defense, and what alleles were present were not disclosed. Such contaminated RT-PCR samples indicated problems of contamination within the laboratory that suggest other samples run in that batch may be contaminated, and should not be used for evidence at trial. Furthermore, such contamination indicates that quality control measures must be implemented in the lab to prevent future contamination issues. The contamination issues indicate that the lab may produce unreliable results and is not suitable for any LCN work without implementation of proper LCN protocols on lab contamination control.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Your previous post on this matter and this one confuse two different aspects of contamination. These are as different as apples and oranges (an English-language idiom).

The confusion is evidence of either to a failure to grasp the fundamentals of the DNA quantification and profiling processes for non-LCN and LCN methods, or an intentional misrepresentation.

The contamination observed in the NTC (no template controls) during the quantification process were not run according to Stefanoni's self-developed LCN method, but the regular quantification process as usually run for RT-PCR quantification. Their profiles were not given to the defense, and what alleles were present were not disclosed. Such contaminated RT-PCR samples indicated problems of contamination within the laboratory that suggest other samples run in that batch may be contaminated, and should not be used for evidence at trial. Furthermore, such contamination indicates that quality control measures must be implemented in the lab to prevent future contamination issues.
Click to expand...

You are spiralling into a state of brain fog. What you says appears confused ("contamination observed were not run" = what does that mean ?)
We can all see you can't respond, and you deflect piling up some off-topic made up stuff in the pro-Knoxes style. "Their profiles were not given": where's evidence that such alleged profiles exist?
And where's the defence instance about this alleged question at the Hellmann trial? Or at the supreme court?

There are no "contamination problems", there are only rare drop-in alleles that one should always expect to find in negative controal, as in accord with literature.
Is there anything else than this? Nothing.
There is nothing.
Only mistification and lies.
 
Machiavelli said:
Vecchiotti has a degree in Medicine and a specialization in legal medicine.
She has no degree in molecular biology. She has no specialization in forensic analysis.
She is appointed to the role of university professor for the specialty "MED/43" (medical jurisprudence). She has taught 30 university courses over the last 40 years, of which 25 have the name "legal medicine" and only four contain the adjective "forensic".
Click to expand...

Your post has misstatements.

Carla Vecchiotti is the author of 17 papers, many on the topic DNA profiling, DNA forensics, and molecular biology.

Source:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carla_Vecchiotti
 
Machiavelli said:
But Meredith's profile was extracted, this is some evidence that there was DNA in that sample.
Click to expand...

The "too low" quantification result and the various signs of malpractice and fraud in the lab suggest that Kercher's profile is the result of contamination, and there was no Kercher DNA on the blade of the knife at all.

I refer you to my earlier post on this thread, listing 19 types of malpractice and fraud by Stefanoni.
 
Bill Williams said:
Yes, folks. Machiavelli said this.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli may be trying to make the point that Guede's presumably-bloody clothes were discarded by Guede and never located by the police. Therefore, because one assailant can do that it is possible that another could do that also, that is, accomplices who were present when blood was shed could also have discarded presumably-bloody clothes, never located by the police.

If my understanding of Machiavelli's point is accurate, I agree with him. Just as one person can later discard bloody clothes, others with him could later also discard bloody clothes.

However, in this case there is no reason (NO EVIDENCE) to believe that this in fact occurred. No evidence that Knox and Sollecito changed or discarded clothes. The fact that no bloody clothes were located does not mean that they had bloody clothes, discarded them, and were never located.

My understanding of Italian legal process is that because an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise, when there are several conflicting interpretations/claims/evidence presented the court is REQUIRED to accept the interpretation/claim/evidence that supports innocence unless it is not at all plausible.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
The "too low" quantification result and the various signs of malpractice and fraud in the lab suggest that Kercher's profile is the result of contamination, and there was no Kercher DNA on the blade of the knife at all.

I refer you to my earlier post on this thread, listing 19 types of malpractice and fraud by Stefanoni.
Click to expand...

To save effort for anyone seeking my earlier post on Stefanoni's malpractice and fraud, I repeat it here, including its very catchy title.

The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni

There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.

The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.

Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1).

Here is a summary.

1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;

2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;

3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;

4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);

5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;

6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;

7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;

8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;

9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;

10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;

11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;

12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;

13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;

14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;

15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;

16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;

17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;

18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).

19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.

ETA: If Patrizia Stefanoni were a character in a Harry Potter book, at Hogwarts she would be in Slytherin House with the other evil schemers.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Wrong. She got a negative quantification, and did not amplify it. (no profile exsists).
Just like Guede's TMB positive trousers.
Click to expand...

Nope. The quantification is positive (by her standards) and there is a missing amplification serial number that corresponds to the suppressed profile.
 
Diocletus said:
Nope. The quantification is positive (by her standards) and there is a missing amplification serial number that corresponds to the suppressed profile.
Click to expand...

Basically those criminals pick samples that were never amplified, and claim Stefanoni suppressed them.

You parrot and claim rep.168 is a DNA profile that was "hidden" ("suppressed"). And it's an example of a profile that never existed. A sample where Stefanoni's report says no DNA profile chart exists: quantification was negative, and - explains - no amplification was done:


 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
The contaminated control has more than 75 picograms; 36b has less than 35.
Click to expand...

Thanks. But what is your estimate of DNA quantity based on? Is that the DNA amount that was on the knife blade, in the Qubit sample, or in the sample that was subjected to amplification and profiling?
 
Machiavelli said:
She belongs to the Institute of Legal Medicine.

The institute that was shut down.
Click to expand...

This childish and stupid game of character assassination is an old chestnut of yours. Presumably you used it against the mothers and fathers of those who bullied you in grade school...

Vecchiotti is a tenured professor - with many referreed journal articles to her credit - at one of the best universities in Italy. That says more than enough objectively about the esteem in which she is held, at a minimum, by the Italian scientific community. One cannot presume her directly responsible for the day to day operation of the refrigerators at this Institute of which you claim she was an employee or member. That would be more Ms. Stefanoni's speed.
 
Machiavelli said:
She belongs to the Institute of Legal Medicine.

The institute that was shut down.
Click to expand...

Carla Vecchiotti is the author of 17 papers, and is an actual working scientist in the area of DNA and forensics.

You have not demonstrated any substantive link between her work and any alleged problems of any part the department of Scienze Anatomiche, istologiche, medico Legali E Dell'Apparato Locomotore at Sapienza University, which has 10 faculty members.

http://uniroma1.academia.edu/Depart...iche_medico_Legali_E_Dell_Apparato_Locomotore
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom